Has someone encountered similar issues with -cov?

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/1/16 2:46 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 7/1/16 2:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 7/1/16 2:05 PM, Chris wrote:
>>> On Friday, 1 July 2016 at 16:30:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16224 -- Andrei
>>>
>>> I fail to see why it should not mark it as uncovered in the `cube`
>>> example. After all the statement is never covered, because `do` executes
>>> before the condition in `while` is checked. Unless you mean it should be
>>> optimized away by the compiler, which in turn has nothing to do with
>>> -cov.
>>
>> Yah it's a bit subtle. That line is in fact pure punctuation, so even
>> though there's no flow through it that's totally fine (as much as you
>> wouldn't expect a line with a "}" to show no coverage). -- Andrei
>
> Suppose one wants to check if you've covered all cases inside the while
> loop (with breaks or returns). Then, one would WANT to see 0 coverage
> there (non-zero coverage would mean an error in logic).
>
> To remove that feedback would mess up someone else's use case.

This argument is phony. Unconvinced. -- Andrei